From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Sat Feb 21 2004 - 17:29:23 GMT
Bo
Bo said:
The dynamic/static relationship is a great puzzle, I am not entirely
sure how to interpret it.
Paul:
Well, this could be a major source of our different understandings of
Pirsig.
To explain how I understand the relationship, first consider Dynamic
Quality as a process and not some kind of object. To help keep this in
mind, think of Dynamic Quality as the process of "valuation." Now
consider that, in the MOQ, valuation *is* perception, experience,
observation, and every other act that SOM assumes a subject does to an
object. Now consider that valuation is both the starting point and the
constant "leading edge" of reality. When a valuation happens for the
first time, and is therefore not a repetition of previous valuations, it
is purely Dynamic. When a valuation is repeated it becomes a static
pattern. Therefore, static patterns have no "existence" outside of the
process - if the process stops, there are no patterns. Without Dynamic
Quality, there is no static quality.
In terms of the static levels, consider that whilst the MOQ agrees with
cosmological evolution theories that inorganic patterns evolved millions
of years ago, I think it is better understood to be saying that the
valuations that create mass/energy began repeating millions of years ago
and is still repeating now. In this sense, inorganic patterns are not
sat there waiting to be experienced, they are constantly being created
by experience. Thus, the static patterns of all levels are constantly
created anew through the ongoing process of
valuation/experience/perception.
Finally, from an individual point of view, the more repeated valuations
made - i.e. the more static patterns created - the less "Dynamic" one's
experience is; but the Dynamic Quality is still there, it *is*
experience. This is how Buddha can say that we are already enlightened.
Bo said:
Biology is the level that grew out of the inorganic and "devours" it for
own purpose and does nothing BUT pick and chose (judge) among inorganic
patterns. The amoeba (in ZMM) judged the acid drop to be bad quality and
shied away. Don't try to be too "prodigious" dear Paul ;-).
Paul:
I'm not trying to do anything other than understand and draw out the
consequences of Pirsig's MOQ as carefully as I can.
In the amoeba example cited, the correct way to describe it would be to
say that both the inorganic-biological patterns of the amoeba and the
inorganic patterns of the acid were created by the evaluation.
Bo said:
"Matter" does not correspond to MOQ's "Inorganic Value" other than in
the most superficial way.
Paul:
Can you back this up? I think "static inorganic patterns of value"
corresponds to matter precisely, in the sense that it answers the same
question that produced "matter" and explains the same data that a
concept of matter explains.
"But if there is no substance, it must be asked, then why isn't
everything chaotic? Why do our experiences act as if they inhere in
something? If you pick up a glass of water why don't the properties of
that glass go flying off in different directions? What is it that keeps
these properties uniform if it is not something called substance? That
is the question that created the concept of substance in the first
place.
The answer provided by the Metaphysics of Quality is similar to that
given for the "causation" platypus. Strike out the word "substance"
wherever it appears and substitute the expression "stable inorganic
patterns of value." Again the difference is linguistic. It doesn't make
a whit of difference in the laboratory which term is used. No dials
change their readings. The observed laboratory data are exactly the
same." [Lila p.120-121]
Do you want to get rid of protons and electrons as well? Are they
allowed but matter isn't?
Paul previously said:
> We are then out of the irresolvable mind/matter relationship because
> one does not have to be reduced to the other. They are both reduced to
> patterns of value. See this from Ant's Textbook.
Bo said:
What does it help that they are "reduced to patterns of value" when you
(and Pirsig) keeps on about subjective and objective as if nothing has
happened.
Paul:
Here we go again. Look at this dictionary definition of "objective":
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.
When it is first stated that "material" (i.e. inorganic/organic matter)
is just one kind of static quality, "objective" is used by the MOQ only
in the sense of the first definition.
The second definition highlights the metaphysical assumption made by a
materialist version of SOM.
You seem to confuse the third definition with the first two. If all that
your SOLAQI is saying is that intellectual patterns are generally
characterised by the third definition, then I wouldn't argue with that
(although it is still not a defining characteristic). It is when the
three definitions are conflated that trouble begins because some types
of knowledge take on the connotations of material objects i.e.
independent of and existing before humans, waiting to be discovered etc.
In the MOQ, "subjective" is simply used to describe the sum total of
static patterns that are not objective (in the first sense from the
above definition). It doesn't equate to illusory or prejudiced or
conjecture or any of the other pejorative connotations of the term that
arise when one uses it epistemologically.
Bo said:
At times I despair a little over "Lila's Child". Listen and listen well:
What Science (as intellect) studies are the regularities (patterns) of
the inorganic level! .....OF THE MOQ! Why this about scientific
knowledge being "subjective" when Pirsig armed with Quality KNOWLEDGE
has declared the inorganic patterns (plus the other levels and their
patterns) to exist beyond any subject/object context.
Paul:
Then you should despair over Lila too. In all of Pirsig's work that I've
read, the MOQ only declares that Dynamic Quality (Quality in ZMM) is
"beyond the subject-object context."
"The Metaphysics of Quality resolves the relationship between intellect
and society, subject and object, mind and matter, by embedding all of
them in a larger system of understanding. Objects are inorganic and
biological values; subjects are social and intellectual values. They are
not two mysterious universes that go floating around in some
subject-object dream that allows them no real contact with one another.
They have a matter-of-fact evolutionary relationship. That evolutionary
relationship is also a moral one." [Lila p.344]
Please show me some contrary statements instead of rattling off your own
profundities.
Regards
Paul
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 21 2004 - 17:38:16 GMT